Replies

"...Tell it to Irish_links. At #181 he says a state can deprive me of my 'assault weapon' property by merely using due process. [as long as they also have a compeling reason of course]:.."

Tom:

You may be very attached to your semi-automatic rifle, but you do not have an unlimited constitutional right to own it. The courts consistently have upheld the notion that state, local and federal governments can limit the types of weapons that can be legally owned and the regulations governing such ownership.

As an extreme example, you can't own a nuclear bomb. I think we all agree with that. Nor can you possess sarin nervce gas, etc. This all seems reasonable and doesn't impringe on your right to own weapons for household defense, sport and the like.

Which brings us to your semi-automatic rifle. Apparently, you can't own one in California. This is draconian and obviously upsets you. But the California laws are generally far less strict than New York. In NYC, its pretty much illegal to possess a handgun. Yet, the gun control laws in NYC haven't been overturned.

Bottom line: the Constitution gives states and smaller government units like cities wide latitude in setting laws relating to the ownership of dangerous machines, objects, chemicals, nerve agents, etc. The states can't ban the ownership of arms entirely, but they do have the power to regulate them.

This is fine. Let one thousand flower bloom, as Chairman Mao said. Tyranny results when the federal government dictates to the states what behaviors they must or must not proscribe or permit. Such questions, like the right to private homosexual behavior, are rightly the sole purview of the states and the people.